1.0 Introduction

This Design and Access Statement is in support of a householder planning application for the extension of the house at Sheldon House Farm, The Brund, SK17 0HP. 2.0 The Applicants

2.1 The Owners (us!)

We are a family of 4 and have purchased Sheldon House Farm as our home. Our oldest child is 4 years old and we hope that she will start attending a local primary school in September 2018. We chose this house because of our family connections with the area: I grew up on a small-holding not far away in Onecote and we got married in St. Peter’s Church, Alstonefield. My family have been farmers in Leek and Upper Hulme for centuries so the idea of living on a small farm seemed to me to be natural. The opportunity to purchase such a property is rare and we are very excited to be in ownership of it. We hope for Sheldon House Farm to be our home for many years to come.

Our aspirations are to create a family home that will give our children the space to grow whilst appreciating and benefitting from the beautiful location in which we will live. We fully understand the responsibility of being the custodian of a property within a conservation area and National Park. As such, we are keen to ensure that any works we carry out to the property both improve and enhance the house and the area.

2.2 The Architect (me!)

I am an architect with many years of experience of working within conservation areas, on listed buildings and in national parks. Much of my career was spent working with Chris Hesketh, a well-respected local Conservation Architect at ctd architects in Leek. In addition, I spent 8 years working in Manchester and London in architectural practices who specialise in the design of high quality one-off private houses (reuse, extension etc). I have a post graduate diploma in Sustainable Heritage from the Bartlett School of Graduate Studies at UCL. I strongly believe in a sensitive and balanced approach to design and the environment and feel that heritage buildings are deserving of a good quality modern design response.

With ctd architects I worked on a wide range of projects including Natural England grant schemes within the Peak Park, the William Butterfield Parsonage in Sheen and St. Peter’s Church in Alstonefield. Further afield, I worked on heritage assets within the potteries (one of which was awarded Retrofit ‘Highly Commended’ award 2013 by the AJ. I also designed a contemporary wedding venue within the curtilage buildings of a Grade II listed manor house facing onto a Grade I listed Norman church.

Whilst practicing in Manchester I designed houses within greenbelt countryside surrounding Alderley Edge and worked on the Grade I listed former bank of England on King Street, Manchester. In London I worked for a practice the focus of which is high-quality, bespoke design mainly in the context of private dwellings. A copper clad modern extension to a Grade II listed house on Chalcot Crescent that I worked on in 2012 was shortlisted for Camden Design Awards in 2013. 3.0 The Site

3.1 Site Location and Context

Sheldon House Farm is located within the hamlet of Brund in the South-West Peak area. The nearest villages are Sheen, Longnor, Hartington and Hulme End. The River Manifold runs to the west and forms a natural boundary along which the land ownership of Sheldon House Farm finishes. The Brund sits to the south west of Sheen Hill, due north of Ecton Hill. The hamlet is within a Conservation Area.

Brund is a small agricultural hamlet of coursed gritstone farmsteads and cottages dating from the 17th to 19th centuries. (PDNPA, p.1)

The hamlet is formed of a dense collection of farmhouses, cottages and outbuildings. These relate to each other through a series of gritstone walls which create small pockets of land in the form of gardens and accessways.

As with most of the dwellings in The Brund, Sheldon House faces south and sits perpendicular, with a gable, to the main road. It is one of the larger and more recently constructed dwellings in the settlement.

The hamlet takes the form of a compact, linear settlement with the farmsteads and workers cottages set in close proximity to one another. The narrow lane that passes the houses on their east side is bounded by low dry-stone walls. The ground falls away towards the river in the west affording views down the valley towards Hulme End and Ecton Hill.

Fig 2. Extract from OS map showing Brund (circled orange) in relation to Sheen, Hartington and Longnor

Fig 3. View towards Rose Cottage (right) and Plum Tree (left), 2018. Plum Tree Cottage, date unknown. The Brund contains a unique collection of buildings with much of its value as a ‘heritage asset’ being in the group of cottages – a cluster of small cellular units linked by small pieces of ground, ‘lanes’ or paths and low gritstone walls. The quality of the built environment at The Brund is high with several of the buildings being grade II listed. None of the buildings within the curtilage of Sheldon House Farm are listed. Sheldon House sits away from the cottages distinguishing them, in particular, as a group. Sheldon House is an individual entity, further west and separated from the group by a track and a garden wall and then by a driveway and garden.

In August 2017 Sheldon House Farm was sold by auction, as were the three neighbouring farmworkers cottages (Hillside, Plum Tree and Rose Cottage), Lime Tree Farm and 131 acres of land, all divided between 10 lots. Sheldon House Farm was sold to us as a smallholding with approximately 12 acres.

The situation that we, as ‘stakeholders’ in The Brund, now find ourselves is quite unique - Most of properties in this close-knit hamlet are now in new ownership and have, in the main, been purchased for owner occupation. This will see a new lease of life being breathed into the hamlet.

3.2 The Existing Site and Building

It is believed that Sheldon House, in its current form, was built in 1888 by Professor John Prince Sheldon, an author, mainly on the subject of dairy farming. Professor Sheldon was also appointed to the Chair of Agriculture at the Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester in 1877. Sheldon inherited the house from his aunt, Hannah Prince upon her death in 1881. It was the house that his mother, Jane Anne Prince, Hannah’s sister, had grown up in. According to an interview (source unknown) with Professor Sheldon in March 1913, a few months before his death,

Two hundred and forty years ago this ancient home and farm was bequeathed by Robert Ryley to his nephew John Prince, and the Prince family have resided thereupon ever since. The present owner [JPS] is the fifth John Prince, and he took up his headquarters here in 1863. It was bequeathed to him by his mother’s sister, Miss Prince [Hannah], in 1881.

Fig 4. Extract from Tithe map, 1845, showing The Brund. Sheldon House is the ‘homestead’ in plot 539. The house that stands on the site today is not entirely the same one inherited by John Prince Sheldon. This man was a 'moderniser' with a specific interest in dairy farming and his ownership of the property began towards the end of the high farming years. It is probable that he rebuilt the house and associated outbuildings in order to bring the farmstead up to date thus maximising productivity. This rebuilding saw the farmhouse becoming larger than its predecessor (likely 17th century cottage/s).

There was extensive rebuilding of farmsteads in the Peak District in the 19th century, the result being that relatively few buildings appear to be substantially complete survivals from the 18th century and earlier. (PDNPA, 2017, p.14)

Sheldon House and its outbuildings are constructed from coursed gritstone with Staffordshire Blue plain clay tiled roofs. The house and the south facing element of the barns both have coped verges and pitched, tiled dormer windows at loft level. A date stone on this section of the barns reads 1888. It is likely that the house was remodelled at this time – a theory supported by OS maps from 1880 and 1899.

The house itself is 2 storeys plus an attic in height and T-shape in plan form. The windows are mainly white painted timber sliding sashes some of which were replaced in the 20th century. A single stained modern timber casement window exists to the kitchen at the rear of the house. The front attic bedrooms are lit by two mullioned windows and the rear attic bedrooms by a casement window.

When studying the plan and elevations it is clear that the house has evolved and grown over time. Elements of the ground and first floor south wing of the house have 17th or 18th century roots, evident in the stonework. The entrance porch, gothic arch window, attic dormers and entire north wing were built later, probably by John Prince Sheldon. On the front elevation a door to the right of the main entrance was turned into a window by the Critchlow family in the early-mid 20th century.

Despite looking relatively grand from the outside, the house is formed of a series of small square rooms with low ceilings and exposed beams and joists resulting in a cottage-esque feeling. The entrance door and porch give the impression of an impressive entrance space behind but in fact they lead directly into what was a reception room. The front section of the house appears to use the body of an old cottage as its base whereas the rear of the house seems to have been rebuilt over an older cellar. The two sections are linked together by an awkward curved corridor.

Two staircases access the first floor where the bedrooms have slightly higher ceilings. The attic bedrooms are accessed via a further two separate staircases, one in each ‘wing’ of the house. There is one small bathroom serving 7 bedrooms. John Prince Sheldon lived at Sheldon House Farm (then a house called 'The Brund' - it was named Sheldon House by the Critchlow family in the mid-20th century) between 1881 and August 1913 when he died. In 1918, the farm was sold at auction to the Critchlow family who remained in ownership of it until 2017. In the 1970s, the deaths of the Critchlow parents lead to the ‘modernisation’ of the house removing all features of any architectural or historic value: The only plumbed and heated Victorian bathroom in the area (this was in a two-storey extension at the rear of the house); Victorian central heating; and all fireplaces. In 2018, the house is in a state of disrepair having been lived in by an elderly brother and sister for many years.

A comment made by nearly every visitor to the house during the pre-auction period and since it came into our ownership, is that for such a grand albeit 'higgledy piggledy' façade, the interior is distinctly underwhelming in terms of layout and lack of original features. On the ground floor the small rooms lead directly into one another; the entrance hall has no sense of ‘arrival’ about it; the curved corridor that links the two wings together crashes through the rear wall of the house (fig. 8) creating a strange curve in the current ground floor cloak room; the kitchen is tiny; the rooms are dark with low ceilings; it is damp, draughty and lacking in central heating; the ratio of bedrooms to ground floor family space is high and the ratio of bathrooms to bedrooms is low. However, part of what excites us about the house is this sense of evolution and potential for the story to continue.

The house is separated from the farmyard by a high stone ‘garden’ wall and has its own driveway accessed from the main road. The wall has a door passing through the middle, surrounded by large stone quoins and the curved sloping section of the wall down to the farmyard gate is topped with hand carved curved coping stones. Unfortunately, the stone wall was built too high and too narrow with a copper beech tree planted within a metre of it. The strength of the tree along with the design of the wall, have contributed to the destabilisation of the wall over time. It is currently in danger of toppling into the farmyard, bringing the doorway with it (Fig.10). We have removed the coping stones and have them in safe keeping for rebedding when the wall is stabilised.

The house is joined to the main body of the garden wall by another section of wall at the same height, behind which hide the two stone lean-to buildings. There is no visual link between the front and back of the house other than through a doorway. There is a grassed area forming a basic garden to the east of the house, a concrete courtyard to the rear of the house and a vast area of tarmac following the driveway down towards the house and continuing past the front of the house to the farmyard. A lower stone wall forms the boundary between the farmyard access track and the tarmacked area to the front of Sheldon House.

The house sits to the east of the farmyard which contains a T-shaped range of stone outbuildings. Along with the tall garden wall, these enclose 3 sides of the main farmyard. These were constructed in the 1880s. To the west of the stone buildings are two modern agricultural buildings within a second farmyard which links directly to the land. The linear development of the hamlet as well as the way in which the curtilages were divided for the auction has resulted in Sheldon House Farm being in ownership of a long plot of farm land spanning from the main road to the river Manifold and becoming narrower as it approaches the road.

3.3 Heritage Value

The historic nature of The Brund means that there is potential for the place to yield evidence about the past. Sheldon House has been dramatically altered over time, diminishing its significance as a piece of built heritage, hence the fact that it is not listed.

In terms of aesthetic value, The Brund is of great significance but much of this can be attributed to the tightly knit group of small farm workers cottages composed of Rose Cottage, Hillside Cottage and Plum Tree Cottage and the interlocking group of gritstone walls that form the spaces and divisions between these cottages. Sheldon House is set away from this group, and whilst it is larger than these cottages, its architectural and aesthetic contribution to the group is less. As has been previously described, the house is not of one single style but a mixture, resulting in something that is more convoluted than cohesive.

Historically and communally, The Brund as a collective including New House Farm and Sheldon House, has a great deal of value. Since August 2017, we have been fortunate enough to become part of an already established wider community. It is apparent that the hamlet has meaning for many people even outside of its boundaries and the link to the Critchlow family is live.

The social history links between Sheldon House Farm and Professor John Prince Sheldon are fascinating. Learning from the past is important to us and we hope to continue this journey. It is important to note though that these houses and cottages are now in new ownership and what has been neglected for some time will now be given a second chance.

The Heritage Environment Record has been consulted but yielded no useful information.

3.4 Neighbouring Trees

Three mature copper beech trees were planted just inside the stone wall boundary which forms the residential curtilage of the house. Along the boundary with the farm access track is a diseased chestnut tree, a cherry tree and a beech tree. Hamps Valley Tree surgeons submitted an application to the Peak Park Authority on our behalf for the removal of the copper beech tree adjacent to the tall garden wall and the diseased chestnut tree to the front of the house. No objections were received. The copper beech tree has been removed in order to preserve the tall garden wall and to allow the south-west gable of the house to dry out.

3.5 Recent Planning History

There is no planning history related to Sheldon House Farm.

The owners of Limetree Farm have recently submitted an application for the proposed extension to dwelling and conversion of attached outbuildings to ancillary living space (application number NP/SM/0118/0011). This has recently been approved. 4.0 The Existing House

4.1 Photographs

From top left to bottom:

Front of house viewed from south-east, towards removed tree and toppling garden / farm-yard wall;

rear of house viewed from north-west;

From top right:

garden wall returning to meet house on west elevation;

looking into corner of garden wall, cess-pit manhole cover and svp from outside WC;

north elevation of house; west elevation of house showing modern casement window and concrete porch and wash house;

inside of external wc room;

inside of existing kitchen; From top left:

View towards removed tree, toppling garden / farm-yard wall, and rotten timber, stone and metal garage;

garage in the farmyard context;

tall garden wall, door into WC and through wall into rear courtyard;

garden / farmyard wall and timber, stone and metal garage;

garden / farmyard wall and timber, stone and metal garage;

corrugated metal barn 5.0 Precedent and Inspiration

5.1 Precedent: Faha Farmhouse, Jamie Fobert Architects

An original grouping of a cottage and barns looking out towards Galway Bay was retained and extended. Materials used include zinc, timber and stone and forms are shed-like'. Both reflect the rural nature of the site.

5.2 Precedent: Watergate Phase 1, James Gorst Architects

The refurbishment of an existing stone barn (in Oxfordshire) into an artists studio and the linking of the two by a new two storey timber building providing garaging and staff accommodation. 5.3 Precedent: Boreraig House, Dualchas Architects

A new house built on an old croft on the Isle of Skye. The house is constructed from Scottish stone and larch cladding and corrugated metal: All materials found in the landscape (walls, fences, roofs). It is heavily insulated and utilises external shutters as a barrier against the winds.

5.4 Precedent: Dovecote Studio, Haworth Tompkins Architects

The project reuses a derelict brick structure within the curtilage of a grade II listed building at Snape Maltings near Aldeburgh in Suffolk. A Cor-ten steel lining sits inside of the existing brick structure, retaining it as existing. The new building is a simple form with a pitched roof. 6.0 Design Proposals

6.1 Site Constraints and Opportunities

Sheldon House is located within an area that is very clearly delineated as residential curtilage by a drystone wall. The house sits towards the bottom of the plot close to the tall garden wall creating a small pocket of space between the house and the stone wall. Two lean-to ‘out-houses’ sit, concealed behind the tall wall, within this space. One of these buildings is an outside WC, the other a shed - neither relevant to the current or future use of the house or farm. Along with the charming but degraded timber garage, they are linked by awkward unusable space. There is an opportunity to utilise this space by replacing the WC and shed with habitable space.

6.2 Use

The existing house is awaiting modernisation.

6.2.1 Problems

We have identified several issues with the way in which the current house is configured,

1. The ground floor circulation lacks sensible flow.
2. The kitchen is small and located in the north wing of the house.
3. The ground floor accommodation is not well balanced with the first and second floor provision.
4. There is only one bathroom to service 7 bedrooms.
5. Two existing residential ‘outbuildings’ and an old timber garage with a footprint of 42 sq m GEA that could be better integrated.

6.2.2 Solutions

1. Reinstate entrance hall in centre of front wing rather than utilising as a reception room. Allow the remaining rooms to radiate from here.

2. Relocate the kitchen to the western-most room in the south elevation thus creating a room that is double aspect with a south facing window, is accessible from the main entrance hall and has the opportunity to be extended to create a dining space and family room.

3. Extend the ground floor to the side of the new kitchen location into the space behind the garden wall, replacing... the WC, shed and garage. New extension to contain dining area and family room, study area and utility room.

4. Positioning kitchen and utility room at the western most point of the house creates a more sensible drainage solution minimising impact on the character of the existing house.

5. Utilise existing spaces created by outbuildings and garage. Incorporate into extension to increase habitable floor area with minimal impact. New footprint to be 56 sq m GEA (increase of 14 sq m).

6.3 Proposal

Sheldon House has been neglected for many years and as a result looks quite 'down at heel'. The house requires substantial investment in order to become a comfortable home suitable for a young family. Any improvements we make now must allow flexibility and space for our family to grow into the future.

Elevationally, the house has stature especially when viewed from the south east. Any moves we make in terms of improving or extending the house must not be so apologetic as to diminish this but at the same time must acknowledge and celebrate the solidity and grandeur of the existing building, allowing it to stand proud.

We propose to maintain the two main entrance doors (on the south and east elevations) into the house, removing the flat roofed concrete porch to the north elevation and creating a window opening here in replacement of the door.

What is currently the kitchen will become part of the adjacent room giving a double aspect to a dark space. We would like to remove the modern stained timber casement window and replace it with a set of painted timber framed glazed doors to give access into the domestic courtyard area to the rear of the house. This room will be a playroom, evolving as the children grow.

We propose moving the kitchen from its location at the rear of the house into a new location to the west of the front wing. This location has dual aspect both north and south but is still not large enough to provide a family kitchen and eating space. Whilst in its new position it is well connected to the entrance hall, due to the cottage origins of the plan it does not have enough space to accommodate our family before, during and after mealtimes in addition to being a place in which to prepare food. In order to make sense of the location of the entrance door, we see the space to the right of the new kitchen being primarily an entrance hall from which circulation to the rest of the house radiates. We would, therefore, like to create a small extension to the west of the house which will provide a dining and informal sitting space for our family – a family room. The existing reception room to the right of the entrance door will be a more formal lounge as per its most recent use.

Creating a family kitchen / living space in this location will reinvigorate Sheldon House, bringing the kitchen to the heart of the home. By building a small extension to the west of the house, we can benefit from the footprint of the existing outbuildings, increasing the floor area of the house with minimal impact on its character and without obscuring its existing form. The outlook and aspect of the existing rooms will remain as existing.

The cellular form and hierarchy of the rooms in the existing house will still be very much perceptible; however, the new spaces will be relatively free-flowing. The utility room and homework area will be located within the new timber structure that will replace the existing timber garage. The utility room will sit at ground floor level with the homework area occupying a mezzanine level over.

It is proposed to plant a grass and wild flower blanket over the flat roof to the living / dining areas. This green roof will sit behind the existing stone garden wall.

6.4 Design, Form and Materiality

Other than increasing the area of the ground floor of the dwelling and improving the layout of the existing spaces, one of the primary aims of the proposals is to consolidate and make more coherent the design of the existing house. It is proposed that the new extension be designed in a sensitive and contemporary manner, appropriate to a ‘Gentleman’s residence’ within a Conservation Area.

As mentioned in section 3.2 the integrity of the existing tall garden wall was compromised by an unmanaged copper beech tree and a fundamental flaw in the design of the wall (too narrow, too high, shallow foundations). The wall is significant in Sheldon’s vision to create a grand house, separated from its farmyard. It also has a major part to play in sheltering the house from the prevailing wind from the south west. The new extension will tie back to the existing tall garden wall, strengthening it and ensuring its survival.

It is proposed to replace the garage with another timber and stone structure with a metal roof and incorporate the area utilised by the stone lean-tos into the new extension. The new extension will be linked to the house with a frameless glass link. The integrity of the recessed area from which the WC and the rear courtyard are both accessed will be retained. The tall garden wall will remain dominant and legible, punctured only by a set of elegant sliding doors.

The proposed extension is one room deep and sits over the footprint of the existing outbuildings and garage. The existing form of the house is clearly retained. The new living space creates a dialogue with the existing domestic courtyard area but is closed to the farmyard elevation other than a single access door. The timber section is raised off the ground, sitting over a stone wall. It is proposed that the timber be larch and the stone wall utilise salvaged stone from site. The pitched section of roof will be corrugated zinc. Two weathered steel panels face the farmyard, emerging from behind the wall reflecting the rural character of the site. Behind these panels sits a flat grass roof. Weathered steel is a material that changes and patinates over time, transforming through rich, autumnal orange colours before finally arriving at a beautiful dark brown-purple. Discreet elements of the cladding will incorporate delicate holes to allow evening light to dapple the interior of the space.

Fig 13. Left: Kew House, Percy + Co. Right: Reconstruction of the Szatmary Palace, MARP The extension is conceived as 3 elements - existing stone walls, slender timber framed glazing under a flat grass roof and a simple timber clad pitched roof volume replacing the existing garage of the same form and material.

The combination of traditional, salvaged materials and new, soft and contemporary materials will bring something special to this part of the conservation area. We do not believe that slavishly trying to recreate the design of the house albeit in a smaller form more appropriate to an extension is the correct response here - to create pastiche would be a wasted opportunity, not in line with the best conservation philosophy and not something that Sheldon himself would have believed in. He had ambition and we aspire to pay tribute to that in addition to improving and enhancing the house and the conservation area. Old and new are clearly but sensitively delineated.

The visual impact of the proposed extension is minimal - it nestles sensitively behind an existing wall, utilises existing footprints, reinterprets the form of the existing garage and reuses existing apertures into the farmyard and domestic courtyard.

6.5 Size, massing and space

The gross external area of the ground floor including domestic curtilage outbuildings currently stands at 221 sq m. The gross external area of the ground floor as proposed will be 238 sq m, just 7.5% larger. The useable space in and around the domestic curtilage is much improved with this design when compared to the existing.

The garden wall is to be retained as existing in extent and form, changed only with the insertion of new timber framed glass doors to the south elevation. The grass roofed extension nestles behind the garden wall. The overall mass of the extension is horizontal; however, verticality is achieved with the orientation of each piece of glass and the larch clad timber structure.

6.6 Privacy and amenity

Sheldon House is located away from the small cottages along the road of the hamlet - it is further west with its front facing the rear of Limetree Farm. The domestic curtilage is also surrounded by a gritstone wall and separated from the cottages by a row of copper beech, chestnut and beech trees. The proposed location of the extension is at the furthest point of the house from the road and therefore the hamlet cottages. It is also further down the hill. The relationship between the location (geographical / shelter etc) of the proposed extension and the rest of the hamlet will ensure minimal impact on setting and therefore privacy and amenity. The south-west corner of Sheldon House and the position of the tall garden wall provide the new living space with a great deal of privacy.

6.7 Sustainability

6.7.1 Social and cultural sustainability

We are a young family who intend to live in the house for many years to come. Our main aim is to bring Sheldon House Farm back into use as a family home in the 21st century thus contributing towards sustaining a living community within The Brund.

We intend to use local craftspeople to work on the house. In doing so we will be supporting the long tradition of craftsmanship in building that has been established in the Peak District. 6.7.2 Environmental sustainability

Sheldon House itself is currently damp inside and out due to overshadowing by the copper beech tree; cement pointing externally and plastering internally; and a lack of heating. It is our intention to repoint the facades with lime mortar, re-plaster internally with lime plaster, insulate the ground floor throughout and install central heating including underfloor heating to the ground floor. The removal of any cement based mortar from the building will protect the building fabric from damp allowing it to breathe into the future. We also propose the use of a renewable energy source by introducing 4 clean burning wood burning stoves into the house. The building fabric of the new extension will ensure minimal heat loss. In addition, we will be recycling stone in the elevations.

Constructive conservation is an inherently sustainable activity that makes use of the embodied energy that has already been consumed in the construction of a building. Modernising and reusing historic buildings also contributes to distinctiveness in the built environment, thus helping to create a better quality of life for present and future generations. (English Heritage / Historic England, 2013, p.3)

6.7.3 Economic sustainability

In the face of economic austerity and a shortage of housing particularly in a national park, upgrading and reusing existing buildings it is of great importance. What our family are proposing to do in this case is adapt what should be a family house but is not currently suitable for this use to the needs of modern life. The measures we take within the house to reduce energy consumption will in turn reduce running costs.

...there is a vast stock of unlisted 19th and 20th century buildings that quietly contributes to the character of our towns and cities. These buildings may be less architecturally significant than those that are listed, but they also offer greater scope for reuse and environmental upgrading. Making the best use of this excellent, if undervalued, resource means adapting these older buildings to the demands of modern use, balancing in the process a sensitive and informed appreciation of original fabric with an inventive approach to design. (Hines, accessed 2018)

In addition, in using local craftspeople to work alongside us in improving and enhancing the house and its environs we will be contributing towards the local economy.

The upkeep of the house, outbuildings and land is a large undertaking. The land allocated to Sheldon House prior to auction was unfortunately not enough to allow the property to be viable as a farming business. It is likely that in order to up keep the house and outbuildings we will need, at some point in the future, to let a bedroom or two in the rear wing of the house on a bed and breakfast basis. This will supplement our finances, contributing to the maintenance of the barns and land. 7.0 Planning Policy

7.1 National Planning Policy Framework

The NPPF requires that local planning policy is structured in such a way as to support developments that, respond to local character and history, and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation (p.15), as well as being visually attractive as a result of good architecture.

The framework also states that local planning authorities should take into account the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness (p.30).

The NPPF makes it clear that the impact of change to a heritage asset should be weighed up against the heritage value of the asset with great weight being given to the asset’s conservation. Sheldon House is not listed and although it is in a conservation area and has a fascinating social history, the proposed works to the dwelling can only be perceived to improve enhance the house and wider conservation area. In addition, the proposed extension is mainly visible only from the private area of the conservation area, viewable only by us.

7.2 Peak District National Park Authority (PDNPA) Core Strategy

The PDNPA Core Strategy 2011 document sets out a series of strategies that will enable its ‘Vision by 2026’ to be achieved by working towards creating,

- A conserved and enhanced Peak District, where the natural beauty and quality of its landscapes, its biodiversity, tranquillity, cultural heritage and the settlements within it continue to be valued for their diversity and richness.
- A welcoming Peak District, where people from all parts of our diverse society have the opportunity to visit, appreciate, understand and enjoy the National Park’s special qualities.
- A living, modern and innovative Peak District, that contributes positively to vibrant communities for both residents and people in neighbouring urban areas, and demonstrates a high quality of life whilst conserving and enhancing the special qualities of the National Park.
- A viable and thriving Peak District economy, that capitalises on its special qualities and promotes a strong sense of identity.

In terms of cultural heritage assets, the PDNPA Core Strategy document acknowledges that the National Planning Policy Framework states that,

Local Development Frameworks should set out a positive and proactive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, taking into account the variations in type and distribution of heritage asset, as well as the contribution made by the historic environment by virtue of its influence on the character of the environment and an area’s sense of place. It states that planning authorities should recognise...the stimulus it can provide to inspire new development of imaginative and high-quality design. (PDNPA, 2001, 9.39) It also recognises that plans should include consideration of how best to conserve individual, groups or types of heritage assets that are most at risk of loss through neglect, decay or other threats (PDNPA, 2001, 9.39).

One of the ways in which cultural heritage can be conserved and enhanced is by

Encouraging the refurbishment and re-use of disused or underused buildings of architectural and historic importance to enhance their contribution to the historic character of the area ((PDNPA, 2001, 9.45)

Policy L3, Cultural heritage assets of archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic significance states that,

A. Development must conserve and where appropriate enhance or reveal the significance of archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic assets and their settings, including statutory designations and other heritage assets of international, national, regional or local importance or special interest;

The proposed refurbishment and extension at Sheldon House achieves these aims. It is a sensitive and high-quality design that has been developed following analysis of the existing dwelling and its setting. The form of the extension speaks to the vernacular whilst also utilising salvaged and locally referenced and sourced materials in a way that enhances their contribution to the historic character of the area. The design is contemporary, sensitive and understated, resonating with the point about being living, modern and innovative. As discussed in the English Heritage document Valuing Places - Good Practice in Conservation Areas, part of their Constructive Conservation series,

Every conservation area contains places which have changed. Often these changes are features of the character which we wish to protect; often, too, further changes have to be accommodated if we are to ensure such places have a viable and beneficial future. (English Heritage, 2011. p.2)

PDNPA Design Guide

As discussed in the PDNPA Design Guide, dwellings within the Peak District tend to be characterised by robustness, simplicity and horizontality of form (PDNPA, 2007, p.13). They were also generally south facing in order to benefit from light and solar gain. Our proposal is influenced by these principles – it will be robust in its materiality, simple in its form and design, emphasises the horizontality of the building and faces south. The location of the extension creates another room at the end of a series of cellular rooms, speaking to the way in which the house has evolved. The Design Guide states that it is preferable to find a design solution which reflects or reinterprets the local tradition and is also a product of our time (p16). Our aim is for the extension to work in harmony with the existing building. The simplicity of the form and the use of high quality materials, detailing and workmanship will ensure that the new element will complement rather than being identical to the existing building. The form and proportions of the extension have been heavily influenced by the PDNPA Design Guide but also take strong cues from the existing house and site. We hope that we will further be able to reinforce this at Sheldon House.

7.4 Peak District Landscape Strategy

As previously mentioned, The Brund, is located within the South West Peak District. In studying the Landscape Strategy for this area it is clear that the hamlet and particularly Sheldon House Farm (as its land slopes down to the river Manifold) falls somewhere within the Upland Pasture or Upper Valley Pasture category, taking characteristics from both these descriptions.

Upland Pastures.

This is an upland pastoral landscape with a traditional dispersed pattern of gritstone farmsteads of probable ancient origins. There are also localised village settlements. Permanent pasture is enclosed by drystone walls and some hedgerows. Trees are scattered along incised cloughs and around dispersed gritstone farmsteads. This is a very peaceful rural landscape with open views to surrounding higher ground. (PDNPA, 2009, p.16)

Upper Valley Pastures.

This is a settled pastoral valley landscape with scattered trees along hedgerows, around settlements and following streams. Fields of permanent pasture are divided by hedgerows and occasional drystone walls. This is a settled landscape with dispersed gritstone farmsteads with stone or clay tile roofs. Views along the valley and to surrounding hills are filtered through scattered trees. (PDNPA, 2009, p.18)

One of the objectives of the Landscape Strategy is to provide a framework from which to protect and manage the distinctive historic character of the landscapes through sustainable landscape management (p.25). In the upland pasture areas this manifests as a priority to protect historic field boundaries and historic settlement patterns whilst protecting or managing the diversity of pastoral farmland. In the upper valley pasture areas, the priority is to protect and diversify the historic network of boundaries and trees, and to encourage natural river processes to provide flood storage, amenity and biodiversity benefits (p.26).

This design and access statement is related purely to the proposed extension at Sheldon House. However, it should be mentioned that increasing biodiversity; protecting field boundaries (drystone walls and hedges); diversifying the network of trees; encouraging natural river processes are all of utmost importance to us and we intend to manage our small parcel of land in a way that will help achieve the PDNPA’s aims.

Both the Conservation Area Appraisal and the Landscape Strategy document mention the negative visual impact from powerlines within The Brund and the wider South West Peak. In the future, we would be looking to take these cables below ground, an aspiration that is shared with other homeowners in The Brund. 8.0 Conclusion

Our investigations have revealed that Sheldon House has evolved over time to suit the needs of each generation and the aspirations of the owner at that time. John Prince Sheldon brought it up to date in the 1880s and we would like to do the same thing now by conserving the essence of the house and allowing its story to be told. We intend to improve, repair and conserve the fabric of Sheldon House and hope to be granted the opportunity to create a flexible living environment for our growing family within this exceptional location.

Our proposals are modest, sensitively designed and enhance rather than adversely affecting the character of the building or the Conservation Area. All alterations respect the existing and original historic fabric, layout and hierarchy of the building.

We believe that our proposals result in a design response that is clear in representing a conservation philosophy that has integrity and authenticity at its heart. We aspire to create a sensitive approach to contemporary renovation and extension within this sensitive location. Our commitment to Sheldon House is positive both for the house and the conservation area.

9.0 Bibliography

Department for Communities and Local Government; National Planning Policy Framework; March 2012

English Heritage; Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment; 2008

English Heritage / Historic England, Constructive Conservation; Sustainable Growth for Historic Places; 2013

English Heritage; Valuing Places - Good Practice in Conservation Areas; 2013

Hines, Mark; Conservation in the Age of Sustainability; www.buildingconservation.com; accessed 30/01/2018

Peak District National Park Authority (PDNPA); Conservation Area: The Brund; date unknown.

PDNPA; Design Guide; 2007

PDNPA; Farmstead Character Statement; 2017

PDNPA; Landscape Strategy: 9. South West Peak; July 2009

PDNPA; Local Development Framework. Core Strategy Development Plan Document; October 2011 A Existing Drawings

Not to scale Sheldon House. THE BRUND. SK17 0HP Existing Cellar and Ground Floor Plans October 2017 1:100 | A3 Drawing no. 010

1. Gritstone walls
2. Timber framed sash windows with stone quoins
3. Staffordshire Blue plain clay tiles
4. Rotten timber framed garage with stone base
5. Stone building with tiled monopitched roof
6. Late 20C stained timber framed casement window

Sheldon House. THE BRUND. SK17 0HP Existing East and West Elevations with Section K-K October 2017 1:100 | A3 Drawing no. 040

01. Gritstone walls
02. Timber framed sash windows with stone quoin
03. Staffordshire Blue plain clay tiles
04. Rotten timber framed garage with stone base
05. Stone building with tiled monopitched roof
06. Late 20C stained timber framed casement window
07. Late 20C concrete porch and timber door
08. Cables
09. Timber gate
10. Frameless glass panes into stone mullions to light attic bedrooms
11. Soil vent pipe from external WC
12. High stone wall with stone coping over

Sheldon House. THE BRUND. SK17 0HP Existing North and South Elevations October 2017 1:100 | A3 Drawing no. 041

01. Gritstone walls
02. Timber framed sash windows with stone quoin
03. Staffordshire Blue plain clay tiles
04. Rotten timber framed garage with stone base
05. Late 20C stained timber framed casement window
06. Late 20C concrete porch and timber door
07. Timber gate
08. Soil vent pipe from external WC
09. Gate into domestic curtilage
10. Gate to farm track up to main road

Sheldon House. THE BRUND. SK17 0HP Existing West Elevation from Yard and Inc. Section L-L October 2017 1:100 | A3 Drawing no. 042 4. Rotten timber framed garage with stone base 5. Store building with tiled monopitched roof 9. Timber gate 11. Soil vent pipe from external WC 12. High stone wall with stone coping over 13. Door into farmyard from house 14. Gate into farmyard from track to main road 15. Door into WC 16. Door into farmyard Proposed Drawings

Not to scale

01. Existing concrete kerb to be removed and replaced with new stone wall and flat capping
02. Existing grassed area and stone wall to be retained
03. Existing paving to be retained. New planting along south facing elevation of house and extension
04. New stone path to front door utilising salvaged flagstones to match existing. New flower bed and lawn to either side of path.
05. Ground level along front elevation of house to be reduced to prevent internal damp and to provide level access to proposed glazed doors. Stone steps up to driveway.
06. 'Grass' to flat area of new extension roof.
07. Existing concrete kerb removed. New stone kerb to form new parking/turning area. Loose degraded tarmac to be replaced with new.
08. Existing farm yard access to be maintained but used infrequently and controlled for safety of children. New loose gravel surface to replace degraded tarmac.
09. Existing septic tank / cess pit to be emptied and infilled.
10. Existing degraded tarmac to be replaced with new loose gravel surface.
11. Stone sets to provide edge to different surface finishes
12. New steps down to existing path
13. Existing dangerous concrete structure to be removed
14. Existing tall farmyard / garden wall
15. Glazed link
16. Location of new biolocisc

Sheldon House. THE BRUND. SK17 0HP Proposed Site Plan January 2018 1:200 | A3 Drawing no. 005

01. New window opening with frameless flush glass infill into existing attic bedroom
02. New window opening with frameless flush glass infill into internal corridor
03. Existing tall garden wall retained
04. Green roof over living area
05. New timber clad pitched roof structure with stone base to replace existing timber clad pitched roof structure with stone base in same location
06. Existing concrete porch and door removed and replaced with new timber framed sash window
07. New timber clad pitched roof structure with stone base to replace existing timber clad pitched roof structure with stone base in same location
08. Existing concrete porch and door removed and replaced with new timber framed sash window
09. New timber framed glazed doors with sandstone quoins to replace double windows
10. Ground level reduced around corner of house to prevent further damp ingress
11. New sliding glass doors set within existing south facing wall
12. New frameless glass link within existing stone 'recess'
13. Existing rotten timber framed and clad building removed

Sheldon House. THE BRUND. SK17 0HP Proposed North and South Elevations October 2017 1:100 | A3 Drawing no. 056

01. New window opening with frameless flush glass infill into existing attic bedroom
02. New window opening with frameless flush glass infill into internal corridor
03. Existing tall garden wall retained
04. New timber clad pitched roof structure with stone base to replace existing timber clad pitched roof structure with stone base in same location
05. Existing concrete porch and door removed and replaced with new timber framed sash window
06. New frameless glass link within existing stone 'recess'
07. New timber framed glazed doors to replace modern stained timber casement window
08. Metal panels, perforated to allow light into interior
09. Existing rotten timber framed and clad building removed
10. Existing tall garden wall retained
11. Green roof over living area
12. New timber clad pitched roof structure with stone base to replace existing timber clad pitched roof structure with stone base in same location
13. New frameless glass link within existing stone 'recess'
14. Slim timber framed sliding glass doors into new living area
15. Existing rotten timber framed and clad building removed